| name | google-agents-cli-eval |
| description | This skill should be used when the user wants to "run an evaluation", "evaluate my ADK agent", "write an eval dataset", "analyze eval failures", "compare eval results", "optimize agent", or needs guidance on the Agent Platform eval methodology and the Quality Flywheel. Covers eval metrics, dataset schema, LLM-as-judge scoring, and common failure causes. Do NOT use for API code patterns (use google-agents-cli-adk-code), deployment (use google-agents-cli-deploy), or project scaffolding (use google-agents-cli-scaffold).
|
| metadata | {"author":"Google","license":"Apache-2.0","version":"0.5.0","requires":{"bins":["agents-cli"],"install":"uv tool install google-agents-cli"}} |
Agent Evaluation Guide
Requires: agents-cli (uv tool install google-agents-cli) — install uv first if needed.
Scaffolded project? If you used /google-agents-cli-scaffold, you already have agents-cli eval run (chains generate + grade), tests/eval/datasets/, and tests/eval/eval_config.yaml. Start with executing eval run and iterate from there.
Reference Files
| File | Contents |
|---|
references/dataset_schema.md | Canonical EvaluationDataset schema — all field types, JSON examples for single-turn / multi-turn / multi-agent, common mistakes |
references/metrics-guide.md | Complete metrics reference — all built-in metrics, match types, custom metrics, judge model config |
references/user-simulation.md | Dynamic conversation testing — eval dataset synthesize flags, what scenarios are, compatible metrics |
references/builtin-tools-eval.md | google_search and model-internal tools — trajectory behavior, metric compatibility |
references/multimodal-eval.md | Multimodal inputs — eval dataset schema, built-in metric limitations, custom evaluator pattern |
The Quality Flywheel
Improving agent quality is iterative. The 5 stages below describe the loop. Each stage has a Default path (you, the coding agent, do the work directly) and an Opt-in CLI command that delegates to the Agent Platform Eval Service for better quality and scale.
1. Prepare Data
Default: Use or edit the scaffolded tests/eval/datasets/basic-dataset.json to define single-turn eval inputs. Start with 1–2 cases.
Opt-in: agents-cli eval dataset synthesize — runs e2e user simulation against your live agent to synthesize multi-turn eval datasets. Prefer when testing multi-turn conversations but lacking data. Output includes traces, so you can skip Stage 2 and go directly to eval grade.
2. Run Inference
agents-cli eval generate — executes the agent over the dataset and writes traces to artifacts/traces/. Run this when you wrote the dataset by hand in Stage 1 (default path). Skip this stage if you used eval dataset synthesize — that command already produced traces.
3. Grade Traces (always run)
agents-cli eval grade — scores the traces and writes results_<ts>.{json,html} to artifacts/grade_results/. No opt-in alternative; this is the core. Always run, regardless of how Stages 1 and 2 produced the traces.
Shortcut: agents-cli eval run chains Stages 2 + 3 in one command using the default artifacts/traces/ directory between them. Use it for the common path; drop back to the two-step form when you need a custom traces location or want to grade an existing traces file.
4. Analyze Failures
Default: Open the latest artifacts/grade_results/results_<ts>.html (or .json) and identify failed metrics — see What to fix when scores fail below for the fix table.
Opt-in: agents-cli eval analyze — runs LLM-based failure clustering and root-cause analysis over the grade results. Prefer when you have 10+ failing cases and want categorized failure modes instead of case-by-case reading.
5. Optimize & Code Fix
Default: Edit the agent — adjust prompts, tool descriptions, instructions, or eval dataset based on the failure analysis. See What to fix when scores fail below for the failure → fix mapping.
Opt-in: agents-cli eval optimize — runs ADK GEPA prompt optimization against a target metric. Suitable for prompt-only failures. The optimized prompt appears in the command output; capture it and apply it to the agent. For the full per-iteration trace, set print_detailed_results: true in your optimization config file.
Long-running and expensive. GEPA optimization makes many LLM calls and can take a long time. Do not run it unless the user explicitly asks for prompt optimization. When you do run it, iterate as far as possible with manual fixes first, then run a single final eval optimize — never loop on this command.
Running the loop
Iterate stages 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 2 (or 1 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 1 if using synthesize). After each fix, run agents-cli eval compare <prev_results>.json <new_results>.json to confirm the target metric improved without regressing others. Expect 5–10+ iterations per case before it passes — this is normal. Only after a case passes should you expand coverage with more eval cases.
When doing 5+ iterations, maintain a task list of which cases are fixed, which are still failing, and what fixes you've tried. Prevents re-attempting the same fix.
Shortcuts That Waste Time
Recognize these rationalizations and push back — they always cost more time than they save:
| Shortcut | Why it fails |
|---|
| "I'll tune the eval thresholds down to make it pass" | Lowering thresholds hides real failures. If the agent can't meet the bar, fix the agent — don't move the bar. |
| "This eval case is flaky, I'll skip it" | Flaky evals reveal non-determinism in your agent. Fix with temperature=0, rubric-based metrics, or more specific instructions — don't delete the signal. |
| "I just need to fix the eval dataset, not the agent" | If you're always adjusting expected outputs, your agent has a behavior problem. Fix the instructions or tool logic first. |
Choosing the Right Metrics
Pick built-in metrics by what you want to measure. Multi-turn metrics evaluate the full conversation; single-turn metrics evaluate one prompt-response pair (with intermediate tool calls). When no built-in fits, write a custom metric (see Evaluation Configuration Schema below).
| Goal | Recommended built-in metrics |
|---|
| Did the agent achieve the user's goal? (catch-all for multi-turn agents) | multi_turn_task_success |
| Was the agent's reasoning path logical and efficient? | multi_turn_trajectory_quality |
| Quality of tool / function calling across turns | multi_turn_tool_use_quality |
| Final response quality (no ground-truth reference needed) | final_response_quality |
| Factual grounding (catch hallucinated claims, e.g., RAG agents) | hallucination |
| Safety policy compliance | safety |
| Domain-specific check no built-in covers | Write a custom LLMMetric (LLM-judge) or CodeExecutionMetric (deterministic Python). See Evaluation Configuration Schema below. |
Run agents-cli eval metric list to see all available built-ins. For full metric definitions and rubric details, see the Agent Platform metric docs and references/metrics-guide.md.
What to fix when scores fail
After agents-cli eval grade completes, inspect the latest artifacts/grade_results/results_<timestamp>.json (or open the .html file) for per-case scores and judge rationales — that's the input to every fix decision below.
| Failure | What to change |
|---|
multi_turn_task_success low | The agent isn't completing the user's goal — fix orchestration, missing tool calls, premature termination, or wrong tool selection |
multi_turn_trajectory_quality low | The agent reaches the goal inefficiently or takes wrong steps — refine planning prompts, tighten instruction order, or remove redundant tool calls |
multi_turn_tool_use_quality low | Fix tool descriptions, parameter docstrings, or agent instructions for tool selection |
final_response_quality low | Read the auto-generated rubric verdicts; refine agent instructions to address the worst-scoring criterion (often clarity, completeness, or instruction-following) |
hallucination low | Tighten agent instructions to stay grounded in tool output; verify the tool actually returned the data the agent claimed |
safety low | Add safety guardrails to instructions; review the violating content category in the rubric verdict |
| Agent calls wrong tools | Fix tool descriptions, agent instructions, or tool_config |
| Agent calls extra tools | Add strict stop instructions, or switch to multi_turn_tool_use_quality |
After applying a fix, rerun agents-cli eval generate && agents-cli eval grade and use agents-cli eval compare <prev_results>.json <new_results>.json to confirm the fix improved the target metric without regressing others.
Eval Commands
All agents-cli eval subcommands support --help for the authoritative flag list and defaults — run agents-cli eval <subcommand> --help (or agents-cli eval dataset <subcommand> --help) when in doubt. The examples below show the most common invocations; flags can change between releases.
eval generate
Runs an agent over an evaluation dataset and writes traces to disk.
agents-cli eval generate
agents-cli eval generate --dataset tests/eval/datasets/custom.json -o ./custom_traces/
eval grade
Scores generated traces against built-in or custom metrics. Writes timestamped results_<YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS>.json (consumed by eval compare) and .html (open in a browser) into the output dir, and prints a summary table to the console.
agents-cli eval grade
agents-cli eval grade --traces custom_traces/
agents-cli eval grade --metrics tool_use_quality,safety --output ./out/
agents-cli eval grade --traces ./artifacts/traces/trace_1.json --config tests/eval/eval_config.yaml
See Evaluation Configuration Schema below for the config file format.
eval compare
Diffs two results_*.json files produced by eval grade. Run it after a fix to confirm the target metric improved without regressing others.
agents-cli eval compare baseline.json candidate.json
eval metric list
Lists the built-in metric names usable with eval grade --metrics.
agents-cli eval metric list
eval analyze
Runs LLM-based failure clustering and root-cause analysis over a results_*.json produced by eval grade. Use when you have 10+ failing cases and want categorized failure modes instead of reading the HTML case-by-case. Supported --metric values: multi_turn_task_success, multi_turn_tool_use_quality.
agents-cli eval analyze --eval-result artifacts/grade_results/results_<ts>.json
agents-cli eval analyze \
--eval-result artifacts/grade_results/results_<ts>.json \
--metric multi_turn_tool_use_quality \
--top-k 5 \
--output artifacts/analysis_<ts>.json
eval dataset synthesize
Generates user scenarios server-side from your agent's tools and instructions, then plays each scenario against an LLM-backed user simulator. The output is a graded-ready trace file with full agent_data.turns populated — feed it directly to eval grade (skip eval generate).
agents-cli eval dataset synthesize
agents-cli eval dataset synthesize \
-n 5 \
--instruction "Customer asking about refunds" \
--environment-context "E-commerce support" \
--max-turns 8 \
-o tests/eval/datasets/refund_scenarios.json
For scenario semantics, the full eval dataset synthesize flag table, and which simulator internals are not user-configurable, see references/user-simulation.md.
eval optimize
Runs ADK GEPA prompt optimization against a target metric. Suitable after eval grade identifies prompt-only failures (wording, not tool/orchestration logic). --dataset and --target-metric override values in --config when both are passed. Long-running and expensive — see Stage 5 of the Quality Flywheel for usage guidance.
agents-cli eval optimize --dataset tests/eval/datasets/basic-dataset.json --target-metric final_response_quality
agents-cli eval optimize --config tests/eval/optimization_config.json
eval submit / eval results (cloud-side)
The managed, asynchronous counterpart to the local path, for large or CI-driven runs: eval submit hands the dataset and metrics to the Agent Platform Eval Service, and eval results polls and downloads the scores. Pass --resource-name <agent> to also run inference server-side (managed generate + grade); omit it to grade an existing trace (managed grade).
agents-cli eval submit --dataset tests/eval/datasets/basic-dataset.json --dest gs://my-bucket
agents-cli eval results --run-id <run-resource-name>
Evaluation Dataset Format
An EvaluationDataset is a JSON file with an eval_cases array. Cases come in two shapes depending on how they're used:
- Inference input (what you give to
eval generate) — a user prompt or a partial conversation ending in a user prompt. The agent runs and produces traces.
- Grading input (what you give to
eval grade) — a complete trace including the agent's responses and tool calls. Normally produced by eval generate or eval dataset synthesize; you don't write these by hand.
See references/dataset_schema.md for the full canonical schema, all field types, and common mistakes.
Inference input format
Two shapes are supported.
(a) Simple single-turn prompt — what the scaffolded tests/eval/datasets/basic-dataset.json uses. The agent runs from scratch.
{
"eval_cases": [
{
"eval_case_id": "greeting",
"prompt": {
"role": "user",
"parts": [{ "text": "Hello, what can you help me with?" }]
}
},
{
"eval_case_id": "weather_query",
"prompt": {
"role": "user",
"parts": [{ "text": "What's the weather like in San Francisco?" }]
}
}
]
}
(b) Multi-turn continuation via agent_data — partial conversation, last turn ends with a user message. Use to continue an existing conversation; the agent's next response is what gets evaluated.
{
"eval_cases": [
{
"eval_case_id": "booking_followup",
"agent_data": {
"agents": {
"flight_booking_agent": {
"agent_id": "flight_booking_agent",
"instruction": "You are a helpful flight booking assistant."
}
},
"turns": [
{
"turn_index": 0,
"events": [
{
"author": "user",
"content": {
"parts": [{ "text": "I want to book a flight to Paris."
Grading input format (traces)
Complete trace — agent responses, tool calls, and tool responses all present. Normally produced by eval generate or eval dataset synthesize; shown here so you can recognize the shape when debugging.
{
"eval_cases": [
{
"eval_case_id": "weather_query",
"agent_data": {
"agents": {
"weather_agent": {
"agent_id": "weather_agent",
"instruction": "You are a helpful weather assistant."
}
},
"turns": [
{
"turn_index": 0,
"events": [
{
"author": "user",
"content": {
"parts": [{ "text": "What's the weather in San Francisco?" }
Key conventions: authors are "user", agent IDs from the agents map, or "tool"; tool calls use function_call parts and tool results use function_response parts. See references/dataset_schema.md for multi-agent examples and the full type reference.
Evaluation Configuration Schema
agents-cli eval grade --config <path> accepts a single configuration file in either YAML (.yaml / .yml) or JSON (.json). The file declares two parts:
metrics_to_run — the selection list of metric names to execute on this run. Names resolve to built-in metrics first, then to entries in custom_metrics.custom_metrics — a definition pool of custom metrics available to this project. Defining a metric here does not run it; it must also appear in metrics_to_run (or be passed via --metrics name1,name2 on the CLI, which is equivalent to overriding metrics_to_run for that invocation).
Minimal example (YAML preferred — human-readable, no JSON escaping for prompts and Python):
metrics_to_run:
- multi_turn_task_success
- example_llm_metric
- agent_turn_count
custom_metrics:
- name: example_llm_metric
prompt_template: |
Rate the agent's response 1-5 for helpfulness and accuracy.
Prompt: {prompt}
Final response: {response}
Full trace (for tool-call and reasoning context): {agent_data}
Return JSON: {"score": <1|2|3|4|5>, "explanation": "<reason>"}
- name: agent_turn_count
custom_function: |
def evaluate(instance):
turns = (instance.get("agent_data") or {}).get("turns", [])
return {'score': len(turns)}
JSON is also accepted (same field names, with prompt_template and custom_function as escaped strings) — but always prefer YAML for human-readable configs.
Each entry in custom_metrics is dispatched by field: presence of custom_function makes it a CodeExecutionMetric (deterministic Python); otherwise it's an LLMMetric (LLM-as-judge with prompt_template). Run agents-cli eval metric list to see available built-ins. For full custom-metric field reference (judge model options, sampling counts), see references/metrics-guide.md.
Agent trace field model. For datasets produced by agents-cli eval generate (or eval dataset synthesize), each eval case exposes three standard fields to a metric:
{prompt} — the user message (or first user turn).{response} — the agent's final text response, extracted from the last text-bearing event. In custom_function callbacks this is instance['response'] with shape {"role": "model", "parts": [{"text": "..."}]}.{agent_data} — the full structured turns/events trace, useful when the judge needs to reason about tool calls or intermediate reasoning.
{reference} and {context} resolve only when the eval case has reference / context fields populated (e.g., golden-answer datasets); they are not populated by eval generate / eval dataset synthesize.
Code-based metrics default to local in-process execution (no GCP project or region required, but the evaluate(instance) function runs with the CLI's privileges). Set execution: "remote" on the metric to run it server-side in Vertex AI's CodeExecutionMetric sandbox instead — that path requires a configured GCP project + region.
Common Gotchas
Use Rubric-Based Tool Evaluation instead of Hardcoded Sequences
Evaluating agent tool usage using strict sequence matching is fragile because agents may call helper tools (like searches or geocoding) in different orders or perform extra proactive steps.
Instead, use multi_turn_tool_use_quality / multi_turn_trajectory_quality. These metrics automatically generate content-based and intent-based adaptive rubrics, assessing technical correctness and technical sequence logic semantically using an LLM judge rather than forcing a rigid match.
App name must match directory name
The App object's name parameter MUST match the directory containing your agent:
app = App(root_agent=root_agent, name="app")
app = App(root_agent=root_agent, name="flight_booking_assistant")
Cross-session memory can't be tested in eval
Each eval case runs in its own fresh in-memory session (eval generate creates a new InMemorySessionService and session id per case). Multi-turn within a case works via agent_data.turns, but behavior that depends on a separate prior session — e.g. Memory Bank recall across sessions — can't be exercised by eval. Validate cross-session continuity with pytest integration tests instead.
Vertex eval region
eval grade, eval submit, and eval dataset synthesize default to the global endpoint — they don't inherit the manifest region (the eval services support only a subset of regions). eval analyze is global-only; eval generate runs locally and follows the project region. So you normally don't configure anything for eval.
Override per run with --region <REGION> (e.g. data residency); the service rejects an unsupported one:
400 FAILED_PRECONDITION: Unsupported region for Vertex Evaluation Service: <region>
No eval region fits your data-residency rules? Fall back to local custom metrics — a custom_metrics entry with a custom_function (execution: local, the default) grades in-process with no GCP region required. You lose the managed built-in metrics, but your custom_function can still call an LLM judge in a compliant region itself — so LLM-as-judge grading stays available anywhere.
The before_agent_callback Pattern (State Initialization)
Always use a callback to initialize session state variables used in your instruction template. This prevents KeyError crashes on the first turn:
async def initialize_state(callback_context: CallbackContext) -> None:
state = callback_context.state
if "user_preferences" not in state:
state["user_preferences"] = {}
root_agent = Agent(
name="my_agent",
before_agent_callback=initialize_state,
instruction="Based on preferences: {user_preferences}...",
)
Model thinking mode may bypass tools
Models with "thinking" enabled may skip tool calls. Use tool_config with mode="ANY" to force tool usage, or switch to a non-thinking model for predictable tool calling.
Common Eval Failure Causes
| Symptom | Cause | Fix |
|---|
| Agent mentions data not in tool output | Hallucination | Tighten agent instructions; add hallucination metric |
| "Session not found" error | App name mismatch | Ensure App name matches directory name |
| Score fluctuates between runs | Non-deterministic model | Set temperature=0 or use rubric-based eval with multiple samples |
tool_use_quality score low | Wrong tool selected or invalid arguments passed | Refine tool descriptions, instructions, or parameter documentation |
| LLM judge ignores image/audio in eval | get_text_from_content() skips non-text parts | Use custom metric with vision-capable judge (see references/multimodal-eval.md) |
Debugging Example
User says: "tool_use_quality is low, what's wrong?"
- Open the latest
artifacts/grade_results/results_<timestamp>.html (or read the .json) and find the rubric verdicts the adaptive metric generated for the failing case.
- Verify whether the agent selected the wrong tool, or called it with wrong arguments — the trace lives in
artifacts/traces/.
- Refine the tool's parameters, Python docstring description, or the agent's tool selection instructions to guide the model better.
- Rerun
agents-cli eval generate && agents-cli eval grade.
agents-cli eval compare <prev>.json <new>.json to confirm the score improved.
Proving Your Work
Don't assert that eval passes — show the evidence. Concrete output prevents false confidence and catches issues early.
- After running eval: Paste the scores table output so the user can see exactly what passed and failed.
- After fixing a failure: Show before/after scores for the specific case you fixed, and confirm no other cases regressed.
- Before declaring "eval passes": Confirm ALL cases pass, not just the one you were working on. Run
agents-cli eval generate and agents-cli eval grade one final time.
- Before moving to deploy: Show the final
agents-cli eval grade output with all cases above threshold. This is the gate — no exceptions.
Related Skills
/google-agents-cli-workflow — Development workflow and the spec-driven build-evaluate-deploy lifecycle/google-agents-cli-adk-code — ADK Python API quick reference for writing agent code/google-agents-cli-scaffold — Project creation and enhancement with agents-cli scaffold create / scaffold enhance/google-agents-cli-deploy — Deployment targets, CI/CD pipelines, and production workflows/google-agents-cli-observability — Cloud Trace, logging, and monitoring for debugging agent behavior
